Paul Burstow: I want to raise the case of one of my constituents, Mr. Vinchenzo Favata. Last September, he was diagnosed with cancer and his consultant at the Royal Marsden prescribed a drug called Glivec, which has been appraised by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The treatment did not begin until November because approval for the funding of the drug from the Sutton and Merton primary care trust was delayed.
	Three weeks ago, my constituent was scanned and it was found that the tumour had started growing again. The clinician recommended an increase in the dosage of the life-saving drug, but such an increase required the primary care trust's panel to make a further decision. The panel met yesterday and did not agree to the extra funding, which has plunged the family into despair and limbo.
	Decisions in the NHS are meant to be taken on the grounds of clinical evidence, clinical need and clinical judgment. Despite a clear clinical recommendation, why has my local primary care trust seen fit to deny Mr. Favata an increased dosage of the life-saving drug to fight his cancer? I have been in touch with the primary care trust and the family is appealing the decision, but I raise the matter today in the hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will draw it to the attention of Health Ministers so that they can take action to stop a practice that seems to be the rationing of drugs on the basis of cost alone.
	I also want to talk about planning in my constituency. I suspect that the problem of predatory developers affects many hon. Members who represent suburban and urban constituencies. Such developers are out and about in my constituency looking for every last little piece of back-garden land on which they can erect flats. A company called Blazemaster has submitted a planning application to demolish 26 Cheam Common road and Lavender avenue and build 133 flats in their place, thus depositing numerous extra cars on to a road infrastructure that is barely able to cope with the traffic already on it and imposing additional stresses and strains on local services.
	Such behaviour cannot be a tolerable way in which to manage the need for additional housing. It is a direct consequence of PPG3, which includes back-garden land in the definition of brownfield land. The daft designation fails to recognise the biodiversity offered by back-garden land and the other contributions that it makes, so I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) advanced the case for re-designating back-garden land when she introduced her ten-minute Bill yesterday. I hope that time will be found to consider the Bill and that it will find favour because it would do a good deal to reassure my constituents and rebuild confidence in the system.
	I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said in her speech. I hope that we will be able to take forward better health care closer to home and make sure that we do not have the new hospital in Sutton, but at St. Helier.